IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

JAMES STEPHEN HURLEY, I Appellant. No. 72545-9-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: February 29, 2016 

### Appelwick, J. — Hurley was convicted of witness tampering based on 

### recorded jail calls between him and a witness. Hurley appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm. FACTS On December 30, 2013, Nicole Guevarra called 911 from a pay phone to 

### reporta domesticviolence incident. Guevarra informedthe911 operatorsthat she
was from Spokane. She hadtraveled to Seattle with her husband, James Hurley, in his semi-truck so that he could make a delivery. Guevarra toldthe 911 operator 

### that Hurley was " 'kicking the crap' " out of her in histruck. Guevarra had bitten Hurley and was able to get away. 

### When police officers located Guevarra, she was crying and out of breath. Guevarra had visible facial injuries and red marks on her neck. Officers alsoNo. 72545-9/2
located Hurley. Hurley had injuries on his arm and backconsistentwith bite marks. Officers arrested Hurley. On December 31, 2013, the court issued a domestic violence no-contact order, preventing Hurley from contacting Guevarra. On January 2, 2014, Hurley was charged with assault in the second degree, felony harassment

- domestic violence, and unlawful imprisonment. Between January 5 and January 13, 2014, Hurley called Guevarra several times from jail. The calls were recorded by the King County Jail's recording system. Based on these recorded calls, the State charged Hurley with tampering with a witness.1 Thejuryfound Hurleyguiltyofwitness tampering. Hurleyappeals.
DISCUSSION 

### Hurleyargues that this court must reverse hiswitness tampering conviction for lack ofevidence. The standard of review on a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

### State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Sanders, 66 Wn. App. 878, 889, 833 P.2d 452 (1992). 

### On appeal, we draw allreasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State and interpret them most strongly against the defendant. State v. Andrews, 172 Wn. App. 703, 706-07, 293 P.3d 1203 (2013). In determining 

### whether the necessary quantum of proof exists, the reviewing court need not be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but only that
1The State also added charges for several misdemeanor violations of the no-contact order.No. 72545-9/3
substantial evidence supports the State's case. State v. Fiser, 99 Wn. App. 714, 718-19, 995 P.2d 107(2000). RCW 9A.72.120 outlines the elements of witness tampering: 

### (1) A person is guilty of tampering with a witness if he or she attempts to induce a witness or person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding 

### or a person whom he or she has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child to: 

### (a) Testify falsely or, without right or privilege to do so, to withhold any testimony; or 

### (2) Absent himselfor herselffrom such proceedings; or 

### (3) Withhold from a law enforcement agency information which he or she has relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child to the agency. 

### Neither Guevarra norHurley testified attrial. Therefore, the State relied on 

### only the recorded phone calls between Hurley and Guevarra as the evidence to 

### support Hurley's witness tampering conviction. Attrial, thejurywas provided with a transcript ofrecorded phone calls between Hurley and Guevarra from January 5, 6, 8, and 13, 2014. And, excerpts oftherecorded phone calls were played for thejury. 

### During closing argument, the State played excerpts ofthe calls again and highlighted portions ofthecalls forthejury. First, the Staterelied on thefollowing excerpt: 

### HURLEY: Anyway, though so. So yeah, you gonna 

### (unintelligible). Whatareyou gonnatell her that she recommends—because one of the reasons that 

### they kept me here is 'cause they're sayin' thatyouNo. 72545-9/4 know that uh that you were worried about me gettin' out. You know what I mean? [GUEVARRA]: Yeah. HURLEY: So. You know. I mean hopefully, that's not a problem no more, right? [GUEVARRA]: No. HURLEY: You know hopefully that could be expressed to the
... . [GUEVARRA]: Yeah, itwill be. The State cited to this excerpt as an example of Hurley trying to influence what Guevarra says. Then, the State referenced the following excerpts: HURLEY: Just get me out of here. 

### [GUEVARRA]: I'm not getting' out. I'mjust—I'mtryin to get it— HURLEY: (Unintelligible). [GUEVARRA]: through you head— HURLEY: Get me out of here. [GUEVARRA]: Huh? HURLEY: Get me out of here. 

### [GUEVARRA]: Ican't. Ican just send that-l can just send thatstuff to the advocate, and you know not go to court. HURLEY: (Unintelligible). UNKNOWN: (Unintelligible). HURLEY: Ilove you— 

### [GUEVARRA]: They want to nail you. Iwas like—I was—I was so floored when Iseen what your—when they took—sheNo. 72545-9/5 told me what your charges were. Iwas likewhat the fuck. HURLEY: Yeah, I know. That's what I'm sayin'. Well they're sayin' because that you know—you know—they're sayin' 'cause I—I guess because Iuh so you're sayin' that I fuckin' held you hostage in the truck and wouldn't let you out. You know what Imean. [GUEVARRA]: Well Idid, and Isaid Itried to get out like five times, but you didn't want me out ofthe truck because the guy that you worked with. HURLEY: Well maybe (unintelligible) maybe you could just 

### exaggerating that many. You know what I'm sayin'. (Unintelligible). 

### [GUEVARRA]: No, itwas four orfive. Iremember clearly. HURLEY: No, you—you're not listenin' to what I'm sayin'. [GUEVARRA]: Uh, huh. HURLEY: You know what I mean. OPERATOR: You have one minute— HURLEY: You know. OPERATOR: remaining. 

### HURLEY: Imean ifyou want me out, maybe you know. It don't matter. Whatever happens, happens, Ilove you okay. [GUEVARRA]: Ilove you too. HURLEY: Get me the fuck out ofhere okay. If you can. Ifyou 

### can't, you can't, whatever. You knowwhat Imean. The State noted that these were examples of Hurley trying to get Guevarra to 

### change her statementornotgo to court. Finally, theState referenced aportion of

one additional call: HURLEY: Yeah. Hey Ilove you (unintelligible).No. 72545-9/6
[GUEVARRA]: Ilove you too. HURLEY: Sorry about all this. [GUEVARRA]: Me too. HURLEY: Okay, You know what I'm sayin'? So you know—you know. I mean worse comes to worst—I mean if they—you know how to do this. We—we've done it before. [GUEVARRA]: Yeah. HURLEY: But this time—hey listen—this time, I'll—I'll go get on some medication when Iget out okay. [GUEVARRA]: Yeah. HURLEY: Ipromise. 

### In addition, in closing argument, the State noted thatHurleyexpresses love during 

### thecalls multiple times, apologizes severaltimes, andpromises to gethelp for his 

### problems. The Statenotedthatthesewere all ways Hurley attempted toinfluence Guevarra into not testifying or changing her story. 

### Hurley argues that the evidence is insufficient, because it does not show that he ever asked Guevarra totestifyfalsely, withhold evidence, or absent herself 

### from proceedings. Hurley asserts that although the evidence indicates that he wanted out ofjail andwanted Guevarra to do what she could to make it happen, the evidence does not establish witness tampering. Hurley claims that the evidence in his case is likethe evidence deemed insufficient in State v. Rem pel, 114Wn.2d77, 785 P.2d 1134(1990). 

### Rempel, who was charged with rape, called the alleged victim witness 

### several timesfromjail. Id at81-82. Thewitness accepted onlytwo orthree ofhis

6No. 72545-9/7

collect calls. Id at 81. The witness's testimony about the substance ofthe phone calls constituted all of the evidence the State used to prove witness tampering at trial. Id. The witness testified that Rempel said that he was sorry, that he would
never do itagain, and that she was going to ruin his life. jd. She also testified that Rempel asked her to drop the charges, jd. The witness testified that Rempel said basically the same thing ineach phone call. Id. at 82. After he was convicted ofwitness tampering, Rempel appealed, challenging 

### the sufficiency of the evidence, jd. at 79. The Rempel court noted that the sum of the defendant's attempts were an apology, a statement that "it" was going to ruin 

### his life, and a request that the witness drop the charges. ]d at 83. The court 

### concluded thatRempel's literalwords contained noexpressthreat norany promise of reward. Id. The court continued, stating that an attemptto induce a witness to 

### withhold testimony does not depend upon only the literal meaning of the words used. Id Rather, the State is entitled to rely also on the inferential meaning of the words and the context in which they were used. ]d at 83-84. But, the Rempel court reasoned that the entire context negated any inference that the request to 

### drop the charge was an inducementtowithhold testimonyfrom a latertrial. Id at 84. The court noted thatthe witness testified thatthe calls did not concern her and 

### that she did notworry aboutthem—testimony relevant to disproving the State's claim that the context of the words spoken showed an attempt to induce the 

### witness towithhold testimony. ]d The Rempel court concluded that the evidence

was insufficient. See id. at 83.No. 72545-9/8
Inso holding, the Rempel court distinguished Rempel's case from cases in which the courts found sufficient evidence: State v. Stroh, 91 Wn.2d 580, 582, 588 P.2d 1182 (1979) (defendant asked the witness not to appear at an administrative 

### hearing or alternativelychange his testimony) and Statev.Winqard, 92 Wash. 219, 221, 158 P. 725 (1916) (defendant promised a reward, made a threat, and urged 

### the witnesses to ignore a subpoena), jd. at 84. Since Rempel, several other 

### Washington courts have found sufficient evidence to support a conviction for witness tampering in otherfactual contexts. See, e.g., State v. Lubers, 81 Wn. 

### App. 614, 622, 915 P.2d 1157(1996) (defendant asked a witnesswho was about to be called to testify to write a letterrecanting information that he had given the 

### police as apartofarape investigation); Statev. Whitfield, 132Wn. App. 878, 897- 98, 134 P.3d 1203 (2006) (defendantattempted to induce witness to give false testimony byproviding witness examples ofhow to do so). 

### Had the phone conversations between Hurley and Guevarra been limited 

### toHurley's confirmation that Guevarra no longerwanted him toremain injail and his encouragement that she relay thatinformation, we agree that the evidence would be insufficient under Rempel. But, other portions of the conversations 

### between Hurley and Guevarra riseto alevel ofinducementnotpresentin Rempel. Like in Lubers, Stroh, and Whitfield, the conversations between Hurley and 

### Guevarra demonstrate that Hurley was actively urging Guevarra—someone who
was about to be called as a witness—to change her statement and, therefore, 

### testify falsely. For instance, Hurley insinuated that Guevarra should change her account about the struggle in the truck on the night of the incident, despite

8No. 72545-9/9
Guevarra emphasizing that she knew the facts as she had previously described them to the police were accurate. Moreover, although Hurley never explicitly told Guevarra not to testify, he
was supportive of Guevarra's offer to absent herself from the proceedings and incentivized her to do so. Hurley asked Guevarra to get him out of jail, and she responded that she could refrain from going to court. Hurley responded that he loved her. And, like in Winqard. Hurley later promised Guevarra a reward for her 

### actions. Aftertelling Guevarra that she "know[s] how to do this," Hurley promised Guevarra that he would get on medication when he got out of jail. 

### Although Hurley's request for Guevarra to change her testimony and Hurley's inducement for her to absent herself from the proceedings were not 

### explicitfrom thewords used, the State may rely on the inferential meaning ofthe words and the context in which they were used. Rempell, 114 Wn.2d at 83-84. 

### Considering the inferential meaning ofwords and the contextisparticularly salient here, because both Hurley and Guevarraknew that they were beingrecorded and needed to use veiled language. 

### Moreover, here, the prior relationship between Hurley and Guevarra—an abuser and a victim of domestic violence—is particularly illustrative to provide 

### context for the phone conversations. See Rempel. 114 Wn.2d at 84 ("[W]e considerthe entire context in which the words were used, which also includes the 

### prior relationship between defendant and [the witness], and herreaction to the phone calls."). In the light mostfavorable to the State, it is clearfrom thephone call transcript thatHurley's abuse was a pattern and that he exercised a certainNo. 72545-9/10

amount of control over Guevarra. Hurley noted thatthey had been in this situation before. And, he promised that "this time" he would go on medication when he got out—implying that there had been previous incidents. At one point, Guevarra noted that she was not going to be the blame for Hurley's problem any longer, implying that Hurley has blamed her for his problems in the past. That Guevarra had remained in a relationship with Hurley and expressed a willingness to help him get out of jail despite his abusive behavior illustrates that Hurley had a certain degree of control over her. Their relationship provides context for the calls and shows Hurley's attempt to control Guevarra yet again. And, unlike the witness in Rempel. Guevarra did not contradictthis by testifying attrialthat Hurley's calls had

no effect on her. In fact, Guevarra did not testify at all. 

### Afterviewing the evidence—the content of the recorded jail calls and the 

### context surroundingthose conversations—inthe light most favorable to the State, we hold that the evidence supports Hurley's conviction forwitness tampering.
We affirm.

WE CONCUR: 

# ,CL ^</ ^fYWX

10